please help understand some doctrine

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i really want to leave the ranks of the trads.... but before i can i need you all to help me understand some things about vatican II. If you can i would love it. I am very close to becoming a "normal" Orthodox catholic agian but i need someone to help me understand some of these docuiments before i can do that.
[quote]
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) [b]still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.[/b] All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.[/quote]

can someone help me to understand how that can be reonciled with the words of the gospel how the jews say that the blood of christ should be on them and on their children?

also what about numerous saints who have spoken about this and called the jews (as a relegion) cursed?:

also

[quote]"It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren."
- Decree on Ecumenism, #8.[/quote]

how is that reconcilible with this:
[quote]"It is almost impossible to happen that Catholics who mix themselves with heretics or schismatics in any act of worship might be worthy to be excused from this shameful crime."
- Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo Bk. VI, Chap. 5, Art. 2, 1748.
[/quote]

[quote]"About the ‘Rights of Man’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God."
- Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi, #13, Nov. 1, 1900.[/quote]
this?
[quote]"The Church proclaims the rights of man."
- Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #41.[/quote]

also wasn't it said that before the council non-catholics did not have the right to be non-catholic and after the council they do?

can someone please help me,

sam

[Paphnutius]

[quote]also wasn't it said that before the council non-catholics did not have the right to be non-catholic and after the council they do?
[/quote]I would be interested in seeing where this came from that non-catholics did not have the right to be non-catholic. I think there is a very important distinction here to be made.

That distinction is that there is such a thing as an [b]objective [/b]or [b]real [/b]right. No one has the real right to sin, which Protestantism for it is a rejection of certain Truth.

Then there is such a thing as a [b] purely subjective [/b]right. The difference is that some Protestants are bound by their conscience to remain protestant. This is because the proper norm of conduct per se is a true conscience, but some have inculpably and invincibly ignorant consciences. This gives rise to the per accidens that one is bound to seek what is true in the sphere of morality according his own intellectual ability. So the Baptist who believes that he is obliged by the law of God to uphold his religion must do so for his conscience is the rule of the norm in his life.

This is not saying that there is no such thing as objective morality, but rather that because the conscience is the norm of conduct in people's actions, one who has invincibly and inculpably erroneous conscience must follow that. Notice the use of [i]invincible [/i]and [i]inculpable[/i]. This is technical language, that means that through no fault of their own have been taught error. Once one has been suffeciently and correctly exposed to the Truth, one can no longer have such a conscience, however. One should always seek the Truth.

So it may be said that Protestants who have such an inculpably erroneous conscience in regards to their religion havethe purely subjective right to practice this. They do not have the real right, though.

This comes from "Outlines of Moral Theology" by Fancis Connell who taught at the CUA and got the imprimatur in 1958 marking it as pre-Vat II. I hope that makes sense.

Also in regards to the Rights of Man, I imagine that this is being used as a techinal term and must be read in context. I will attempt to locate this and see if I cannot point out how it is coherent.

Edited November 21, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Paphnutius]

It looks like this Tamesti is speaking about the so called "rights of men" being their "right" to remain ignorant and sinful. The pope is not denying the rights of man in general, that which we have by our dignity via imago Dei, but rather the false rights of man that some are flaunting.

The quick overview I did seems to speak of a need for educating people of Christ, not of denying human rights that the Church truly defends. One real right of man is to hear the Good News and this encyclical supports that.

Edited November 21, 2005 by Paphnutius

[phatcatholic]

nutty seems to have adequately addressed the last two questions from your post (nutty's my dawg btw). i can address the first one:

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Nov 20 2005, 07:34 PM']can someone help me to understand how [[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2NON.HTM"][b]point 4 of Nostra Aetate[/b][/url]] can be reonciled with the words of the gospel how the jews say that the blood of christ should be on them and on their children?[/quote]
well, there's many reasons why we cannot say that the Jews (as in, the entire collective lot) are responsible for the death of Jesus. for one, not [i]every[/i] Jew was present in the crowd when the cries of "crucify him" rang out. so we can't blame [i]them all[/i] for what happened. also, it was not just the crowd who had a hand in his death. Pilate, a Roman curator, surely played a part. should we then blame the entire Roman nation? Judas, one of the apostles played his role as well. should we then blame all the apostles? of course not.

also, what vatican II says here in nostra aetate is nothing new. whenever you can quote earlier documents that are in agreement w/ vatican II, this is helpful when dealing w/ ultratraditionalists. the roman catechism says that [i]all sinners[/i] are responsible for the death of Christ:[list]"sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured: We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for He is in them) and hold Him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostles, ‘None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.’ We however, profess to know Him. And when we deny Him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on Him" (I, 5, 11).
[/list]this article is very helpful as well:

Who Really Killed Jesus?
[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0714.html"]http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0714.html[/url]


[quote]also what about numerous saints who have spoken about this and called the jews (as a relegion) cursed?:[/quote]
we would have to take each passage one at a time and look at exactly what the saint was trying to say. often times, their words are taken out of context.


as for your question regarding ecumenism and common worship, i'll have to look up the two documents in question......

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Thanks Phat Catholic and Paphnutius

Edited November 21, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Paphnutius]

If I may offer a few thoughts on the question about the new slant towards eccumenicism. Granted, however, that this is not my best subject...

EENS is acutally correct that for a good long time the Church expressely forbid active participation in non-Catholic public worship services. Now that is a loaded statement so let us unpack that a little.

Active participation- This means that a Catholic was not allowed to sing or pray in a public ceremony. One could attend the service, but could only participate passively as far as standing and sitting. Kneeling was not too appropriate.

Non-Catholic- well that pretty much speaks for itself. I am not sure if non-denominational would fall under this because it was not really a big thing 50+ years ago, but Protestant is considered Non-Catholic.

Public worship- Just what it says it is. This means, however, that one could pray and sing with seperated brethren privately as long as there was nothing offensive to the faith in the prayers or hymns.

So you can see that not all form of prayer with Protestants was banned, but active participation in public worship. That being said, the Church has decided to approach our seperated brethren in an attempt to heal the wound that divides Christians. True Eccumenisim does not mitigate the Truth so that people may come together, but instead focuses on shared beliefs instead of differences. It brings to mind the Truth that we share in common (because we do share SOME) and uses that as a salve over the wound. As phatcatholic said, it would be best for us to look at the documents in question.

It should also be noted that not all prayer is a form of worship.

I am sure that others could build on this to better fully answer your question.

Edited November 21, 2005 by Paphnutius

[PedroX]

Just a quick note to state that Pius XII condemned the concept of collective guilt 3 times during his papacy. I can find the quotes if you need them, or you can look them up in the new Catholic Encyclopedia.

peace...

[journeyman]

This may be a little simplistic for what you want:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him
Genesis 1:31 God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.

Mark 12:28-34 One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, "Which is the first of all the commandments?"
Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
The scribe said to him, "Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, 'He is One and there is no other than he.'
And 'to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself' is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

To love your neighbor, who is God's very good creation, made in His own image, is to love God. There is no requirement that your neighbor be a traditional Latin Rite Catholic . . . or even a Catholic at all . . . or even, for that matter, a Christian . . .

Matthew 25:31-45 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'

Matthew 10:40 "Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

thanks everyone.

[photosynthesis]

are you talking about the Rights of Man as in Thomas Paine's "rights of man"?